1.6 Who are the winners and losers?
The obvious question is - who loses? The answer is - PWCs who share care
and earn a significant amount of money currently get an unfair bonus from
achieving the title "PWC", and with this formula lose that unfair
advantage.
According to the White Paper, they should not only get Child Benefit
(which the NRP doesn't), but also a substantial proportion of the NRP's
income even where care is shared. This fair shared-care formula requires
them for the first time to be financially responsible for the child while
the NRP is caring. They will typically still receive child support, of
course, but it will reflect the true savings to them from the caring performed
by the NRP, and they will themselves have to recognise their own financial
responsibility while they are not directly caring for the children.
Apart from them:
| - |
the children win, because with the fair shared-care formula money
tends to be transfered from the better-off to the poorer-off household
specifically for the children; |
| - |
NRPs who commit themselves emotionally as well as financially to
their children win, because their assessment fairly recognises their
increased direct cost of providing for the children, as well as the
PWC's reduced costs while the children are not there; |
| - |
taxpayers probably win, because this proposal transfers money from
the richer to the poorer household under more circumstances, and so
even an NRP on benefits will sometimes receive payments which reduce
the benefits spend; |
| - |
and family life probably wins, because there is less financial incentive
to separate when both parents want to share the care of their children. |
1.7 What do other countries do?
A number of enlightened nations and states have approaches similar to
this proposal. It is not a radically new approach, but one for which there
is practical experience. These other countries include:
| - |
Australia; |
| - |
New Zealand; |
| - |
United States of America - at least in
the following states: |
| |
- |
Alaska; |
| |
- |
Indiana; |
| |
- |
Kansas; |
| |
- |
Montana; |
| |
- |
Nebraska; |
| |
- |
New Mexico; |
| |
- |
South Carolina; |
| |
- |
Wisconsin. |
All of these territories cater for shared-care by examining the liability
that each parent has towards to the other, then taking the difference
between them.
The UK is in danger of becoming one of the less enlightened nations as
far as supporting the assertion "children are entitled to the emotional
and financial support of both parents" is concerned.
|